Forced by What?

[exchemist]

Geeze, no need to get snarky.
I'm fully aware that experts are everywhere on here...until they proven not to be. I acknowledge that I may be misconceived here about the reality and nature of the energy/mass relationship. I've tried to conjecture about that relationship is such a way as to receive answers to what I've found to be questionable common assumptions.
I don't know @ratiocinator. So to tell me that I am wrong because I've contradicted him is pointless and irrational. Your appealing to his authority without verifying that authority when the arguments should suffice.
Be that as it may with your patience I've a few questions you may be able to answer so that I can better understand this relationship.

1) What matter does not contain some form of energy?
2) Does all matter have mass
3) Does all matter have momentum?

Thanks for your input.

And now a question for you: Does antimatter have mass?

 

[ratiocinator]

I don't know @ratiocinator. So to tell me that I am wrong because I've contradicted him is pointless and irrational. Your appealing to his authority without verifying that authority when the arguments should suffice.

Worth pointing out that I have already addressed your points but you have posted no replies.

1) What matter does not contain some form of energy?
2) Does all matter have mass
3) Does all matter have momentum?

1. Yes, everything has energy, but how much depends on the frame of reference it's observed in.
2. As has been pointed out, "matter" is not a well defined term. However, I'm not aware of a usage that would include massless particles. I'm also not aware of a usage that would make this a unique property of matter, i.e. one that would include the massive W and Z bosons.
3. Depends on the frame of reference again.

If you're at all interested in understanding these things (rather than trying to impose your own ideas on science) then you've been give two links to an excellent blog by a theoretical physicist who explains these things very clearly. Here they are again:

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

Matt Strassler [April 12, 2012] It is common that, when reading about the universe or about particle physics, one will come across a phrase that somehow refers to “matter and energy”, a…

profmattstrassler.com

Mass and Energy

Matt Strassler [March 27, 2012] A number of puzzling features of the world — including a number that my readers have asked about in comments — have everything to do with the nature of m…

profmattstrassler.com

 

[exchemist]

Worth pointing out that I have already addressed your points but you have posted no replies.

1. Yes, everything has energy, but how much depends on the frame of reference it's observed in.
2. As has been pointed out, "matter" is not a well defined term. However, I'm not aware of a usage that would include massless particles. I'm also not aware of a usage that would make this a unique property of matter, i.e. one that would include the massive W and Z bosons.
3. Depends on the frame of reference again.

If you're at all interested in understanding these things (rather than trying to impose your own ideas on science) then you've been give two links to an excellent blog by a theoretical physicist who explains these things very clearly. Here they are again:

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

Matt Strassler [April 12, 2012] It is common that, when reading about the universe or about particle physics, one will come across a phrase that somehow refers to “matter and energy”, a…

profmattstrassler.com

Mass and Energy

Matt Strassler [March 27, 2012] A number of puzzling features of the world — including a number that my readers have asked about in comments — have everything to do with the nature of m…

profmattstrassler.com

Excellent links.

I find Matt Strassler to be good value. He has a very nice piece on virtual particles, another much misunderstood concept in modern physics.

 

[setarcos]

No, it isn't. It's a property.

Please indulge me with your patience.
Mass is a property of some matter but it "measures" nothing concerning that matter? So mass isn't a measurement of matter?
I got confused concerning this since every equation for calculating the qualities of matter involving mass involves calculations of quantities of other things.

No. Fundamental participles are considered to be points. They have no volume (at least not in the conventional sense).

Here again I got confused since we are talking about systems involving mass and even quarks have been determined to have mass.
Its my understanding that anything with mass must have volume. Is this not correct?

Wrong. Radiation is not an "aspect of energy" at all. It has energy, just like matter does.

I'm sorry, again I got confused apparently. Dr. Strassler has said... "if I put a particle and an anti-particle together, almost all their properties cancel...Mass isn’t “conserved”; we’ll see in a minute that mass can appear or disappear, which is really good for particle physics. The only thing that is definitely going to stick around is energy. Energy is conserved: however much you start with, you will end with the same amount."
This is what I meant. The mass has been converted. Is this incorrect?
I got curious about my misinterpretation so I did a search to see what others thought about radiation....

"Radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through space and may be able to penetrate various materials."
The Health Physics Society
"Radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through space at the speed of light."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
"Radiation can be described as energy or particles from a source that travel through space or other mediums. "
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization
"Radiation is energy given off by matter in the form of rays or high-speed particles."
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
"Radiation is a specific type of heat transfer. Let’s review some things about heat transfer. In physics, we define heat as a form of energy that is transferred among different substances.
Duke University
" Radiation is a form of energy that is emitted in the form of rays, electromagnetic waves, and/or particles."
NASA
" radiation is a way in which energy moves from one place to another.
UCLA
So, when I said "aspect -a particular status or phase in which something appears or may be regarded - of energy" surely you can see why I became confused.

There is no direct relationship between matter (which isn't even well defined in physics) and energy.

Again, sorry. I didn't clarify -matter having mass. I guess I assumed that since we are discussing Einstein's equation you would have picked up on that fact.

both of which are properties

I can see why we treat them as properties to make some sort of sense of reality but I'll try and show further down why I think we can reduce energy -what we define as whatever can produce work - to a property of itself so that you can show we where I've misunderstood a fundamental principle.

I Appreciate the link. I like Dr. Strassler's style of teaching.

Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.

I don't think I've made this claim. I would class mass and energy together. I consider matter to be a catch all term. A set if you will containing elements of physically interactive reality.

Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.

We are dealing with matter that has mass specifically and energy generally. This is our context.

But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has

The language used is tricky for sure.
I don't think in his article we've been given a good definition of what energy actually is in the sense of what the term is describing. How is a property conserved and transferred if it isn't something? We've been given a description of what work has been done or is capable of being done but not a description of what is actually doing the work or how.
If energy isn't stuff then what is the stuff at the singularity of the Big Bang considered to be?
Its my understanding that there are 4 fundamental properties describing elementary particles. They are mass, energy, charge, and spin. Three if we equate mass with energy. These are the things giving identity to the particles.
We can eliminate charge and mass by setting them to zero. In the case of mass the conversion is to energy. Leaving energy and spin(angular momentum). So what is left which has angular momentum? An idea? An equation?

The stuff of the universe is all made from fields

Seems to be the current consensus. This just adds another layer of questions though.
I would point out though that the question is far from settled, including exactly what a field is. There are articles in the American Journal of Physics which seem diametrically apposed to each other. One says everything is fields There are no particles, there are only fields. One says there are no fields or particles THERE ARE NO PARTICLES, AND THERE ARE NO FIELDS and one says quantum fields aren't really fields Quantum fields are not fields; comment on “There are no particles, there are only fields,” by Art Hobson [Am. J. Phys. 81(3), 211–223 (2013)]
Also apparently energy is considered a physical quantity and an electromagnetic field is basically an energy field is it not, the frequency and wavelength a determinant of the measured energy content at the measured point in the field since there is no other way of describing said field?

Now for how I became confused...
From E=mc^2 for the "rest mass" of an object.
From Dr. Strasslers work....as I read it.

(Equation 1) E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 a Pythagorean relation derived by Einstein.

and Velocity divided by the speed of light = (pc)/E. (equation #2)

This gives us the "speed limit" of the universe equal to lightspeed, the sine of pc over E.
And finally with the momentum set to zero (no momentum) we get back to E=mc^2.
Pretty straight forward.
From these we can see, as Dr. Strassler has pointed that in setting momentum to zero we make the energy = to the rest mass of the particle which is equal to density multiplied by its volume. I get volume in space/time but what are we talking about that has density within that volume if we eliminate the other properties except energy?
For example we can set momentum to zero giving us an equality between one property and another - mass and energy. Or we can set mass to zero giving us E=pc. Now if we can equate properties then how do we distinguish them? We just as well say we have one property manifested in two different ways.
Mass becomes energy or momentum becomes energy or vice versa but in either case we always retain only the property of energy in the case we are examining here.
I suppose one might also consider what it means to transfer a property from one thing to another without changing the fundamental identity of the transferor which is confusing.

 

[exchemist]

Please indulge me with your patience.
Mass is a property of some matter but it "measures" nothing concerning that matter? So mass isn't a measurement of matter?
I got confused concerning this since every equation for calculating the qualities of matter involving mass involves calculations of quantities of other things.

Here again I got confused since we are talking about systems involving mass and even quarks have been determined to have mass.
Its my understanding that anything with mass must have volume. Is this not correct?


I'm sorry, again I got confused apparently. Dr. Strassler has said... "if I put a particle and an anti-particle together, almost all their properties cancel...Mass isn’t “conserved”; we’ll see in a minute that mass can appear or disappear, which is really good for particle physics. The only thing that is definitely going to stick around is energy. Energy is conserved: however much you start with, you will end with the same amount."
This is what I meant. The mass has been converted. Is this incorrect?
I got curious about my misinterpretation so I did a search to see what others thought about radiation....

"Radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through space and may be able to penetrate various materials."
The Health Physics Society
"Radiation is energy that comes from a source and travels through space at the speed of light."
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
"Radiation can be described as energy or particles from a source that travel through space or other mediums. "
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization
"Radiation is energy given off by matter in the form of rays or high-speed particles."
Nuclear Regulatory Commission
"Radiation is a specific type of heat transfer. Let’s review some things about heat transfer. In physics, we define heat as a form of energy that is transferred among different substances.
Duke University
" Radiation is a form of energy that is emitted in the form of rays, electromagnetic waves, and/or particles."
NASA
" radiation is a way in which energy moves from one place to another.
UCLA
So, when I said "aspect -a particular status or phase in which something appears or may be regarded - of energy" surely you can see why I became confused.

Again, sorry. I didn't clarify -matter having mass. I guess I assumed that since we are discussing Einstein's equation you would have picked up on that fact.

I can see why we treat them as properties to make some sort of sense of reality but I'll try and show further down why I think we can reduce energy -what we define as whatever can produce work - to a property of itself so that you can show we where I've misunderstood a fundamental principle.

I Appreciate the link. I like Dr. Strassler's style of teaching.

I don't think I've made this claim. I would class mass and energy together. I consider matter to be a catch all term. A set if you will containing elements of physically interactive reality.

We are dealing with matter that has mass specifically and energy generally. This is our context.

The language used is tricky for sure.
I don't think in his article we've been given a good definition of what energy actually is in the sense of what the term is describing. How is a property conserved and transferred if it isn't something? We've been given a description of what work has been done or is capable of being done but not a description of what is actually doing the work or how.
If energy isn't stuff then what is the stuff at the singularity of the Big Bang considered to be?
Its my understanding that there are 4 fundamental properties describing elementary particles. They are mass, energy, charge, and spin. Three if we equate mass with energy. These are the things giving identity to the particles.
We can eliminate charge and mass by setting them to zero. In the case of mass the conversion is to energy. Leaving energy and spin(angular momentum). So what is left which has angular momentum? An idea? An equation?


Seems to be the current consensus. This just adds another layer of questions though.
I would point out though that the question is far from settled, including exactly what a field is. There are articles in the American Journal of Physics which seem diametrically apposed to each other. One says everything is fields There are no particles, there are only fields. One says there are no fields or particles THERE ARE NO PARTICLES, AND THERE ARE NO FIELDS and one says quantum fields aren't really fields Quantum fields are not fields; comment on “There are no particles, there are only fields,” by Art Hobson [Am. J. Phys. 81(3), 211–223 (2013)]
Also apparently energy is considered a physical quantity and an electromagnetic field is basically an energy field is it not, the frequency and wavelength a determinant of the measured energy content at the measured point in the field since there is no other way of describing said field?

Now for how I became confused...
From E=mc^2 for the "rest mass" of an object.
From Dr. Strasslers work....as I read it.

(Equation 1) E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2 a Pythagorean relation derived by Einstein.

and Velocity divided by the speed of light = (pc)/E. (equation #2)

This gives us the "speed limit" of the universe equal to lightspeed, the sine of pc over E.
And finally with the momentum set to zero (no momentum) we get back to E=mc^2.
Pretty straight forward.
From these we can see, as Dr. Strassler has pointed that in setting momentum to zero we make the energy = to the rest mass of the particle which is equal to density multiplied by its volume. I get volume in space/time but what are we talking about that has density within that volume if we eliminate the other properties except energy?
For example we can set momentum to zero giving us an equality between one property and another - mass and energy. Or we can set mass to zero giving us E=pc. Now if we can equate properties then how do we distinguish them? We just as well say we have one property manifested in two different ways.
Mass becomes energy or momentum becomes energy or vice versa but in either case we always retain only the property of energy in the case we are examining here.
I suppose one might also consider what it means to transfer a property from one thing to another without changing the fundamental identity of the transferor which is confusing.

This seems to be going in the right sort of direction now. You are in good hands. I shan’t interfere.

 

[ratiocinator]

Mass is a property of some matter but it "measures" nothing concerning that matter?

It measures a specific property of matter. If we have a lot of matter, it will have all sorts of other properties like temperature, momentum, density, and so on. If we dig down to fundamental particles, then mass is one property, along with electric charge, spin, and so on.

I got confused concerning this since every equation for calculating the qualities of matter involving mass involves calculations of quantities of other things.

Well "quantity of matter" is rather ambiguous. You may mean volume or mass depending in the context. You may also mean "amount of substance", measured in moles.

Its my understanding that anything with mass must have volume. Is this not correct?

Elementary particle do not have some fixed volume In the context of quantum mechanics and are basicallt treated as points (this is how string theory differs in that string theory regards them as 1-dimension strings). In practice their quantum states cannot be exactly localised to a point because of the uncertainty principle, but it is not meaningful to give such particles a density.

I'm sorry, again I got confused apparently. Dr. Strassler has said... "if I put a particle and an anti-particle together, almost all their properties cancel...Mass isn’t “conserved”; we’ll see in a minute that mass can appear or disappear, which is really good for particle physics. The only thing that is definitely going to stick around is energy. Energy is conserved: however much you start with, you will end with the same amount."
This is what I meant. The mass has been converted. Is this incorrect?

The mass, which was a property of the particle and anti-particle, will be converted into energy, which is a property of the resulting photons. The photons (EM radiation) are not an aspect of energy, they are particles that have energy. In this sense they are no different from other particles.

We are dealing with matter that has mass specifically and energy generally. This is our context.

That doesn't really help very much. We are still dealing with an ambiguous idea. It is also true that, while all matter has mass, not everything with mass (and energy) is matter.

I don't think in his article we've been given a good definition of what energy actually is in the sense of what the term is describing.

As Strassler says in the Mass and Energy article:

Unfortunately, the meaning of “energy” in physics is very difficult to put into the form of a dictionary definition, with a short phrase that characterizes what it is. But do not be misled! This is a failure of language, and does not mean that physicists’ notion of energy is vague. Not at all! In any given physical system, it is very clear what the energy of the system is, both in terms of how to measure it experimentally and (if there are equations that can predict the system’s behavior) how to calculate it.​

How is a property conserved and transferred if it isn't something?

Momentum is conserved too (and for very similar reasons). You can, in a way, consider them both to be "book-keeping" numbers that keep track of the fact that the laws of physics don't change with time (energy) or from place to place (momentum). Angular momentum is conserved because they don't change with direction.

If energy isn't stuff then what is the stuff at the singularity of the Big Bang considered to be?

Very few cosmologies (if any) think there was a literal singularity. Here's Strassler again on the subject: Did The Universe Really Begin With a Singularity? What it was that existed in the very early stages becomes more and more speculative as we go back but it can't have been energy simply because of the way it's defined. For an overview:

Chronology of the universe - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We can eliminate charge and mass by setting them to zero. In the case of mass the conversion is to energy. Leaving energy and spin(angular momentum). So what is left which has angular momentum? An idea? An equation?

Not entirely sure what you mean. Spin is quite a difficult concept; a kind of intrinsic angular momentum that is quantised. All electrons, for example, have spin ½.

Seems to be the current consensus. This just adds another layer of questions though.
I would point out though that the question is far from settled, including exactly what a field is. There are articles in the American Journal of Physics which seem diametrically apposed to each other. One says everything is fields There are no particles, there are only fields. One says there are no fields or particles THERE ARE NO PARTICLES, AND THERE ARE NO FIELDS and one says quantum fields aren't really fields Quantum fields are not fields; comment on “There are no particles, there are only fields,” by Art Hobson [Am. J. Phys. 81(3), 211–223 (2013)]

Quantum field theory is complicated and I'm not going to try to address this because my understanding is limited. I've studied standard quantum mechanics, can do the maths for that, and understand the ways in which QFT extends this but I can't claim proficiency in the subject and mathematics for QFT.

From these we can see, as Dr. Strassler has pointed that in setting momentum to zero we make the energy = to the rest mass of the particle which is equal to density multiplied by its volume. I get volume in space/time but what are we talking about that has density within that volume if we eliminate the other properties except energy?

You really need to give up on the density and volume. Mass is a basic property of particles.

For example we can set momentum to zero giving us an equality between one property and another - mass and energy. Or we can set mass to zero giving us E=pc. Now if we can equate properties then how do we distinguish them? We just as well say we have one property manifested in two different ways.
Mass becomes energy or momentum becomes energy or vice versa but in either case we always retain only the property of energy in the case we are examining here.

The whole relationship relates directly the energy-momentum 4-vector (special relativity) I mentioned before. It is defined (direct from wiki article) as:

Its magnitude is (again refer to wiki):

Replacing the magnitude of the vector p with just p for momentum, we get:

So

Hence

Which is exactly the relationship Strassler is using. In other words, you are just looking at the same 4-vector from different frames of reference. This is exactly why energy and momentum are closely related.

 

[wellwisher]

What is a force? Most people are aware of the discovered forces in nature. Weak force, electric charge, magnetic fields, strong force, gravitational force....forces all the way up and down. But what actually IS a force? What is a field in science? For that matter what IS energy? Of course we can simply say "blank" is and then give its definition. But do our definitions tell us what these things actually are? Or do our definitions simply tell us what these things have been observed to do?

Mass, is one aspect of matter. Mass defines the capacitance for space-time, with space-time reference, the reference for all the other observations. Mass cannot travel the speed of light, even though energy and the transmission of force, can. Mass, however, can bend space-time, whereas, energy lives in a realm where space and time are not bent; speed of light. However, the affect of energy on matter appears to bend, due to mass bending space-time thereby changing how we view energy.

If mass was to disappear from the universe, so would space-time, and the way we observe all else.